Homstall Road - Humps

[PeckhamRose]

Bloody hell James would you stop using our forum to score points at your other councillors?

You're all as bad as each other and we've told you about this before!

Marmora Man - THANK YOU.

[SimonM]

I am sending a letter too based very closely on MM's excellent summary

[James Barber]

Hi Peckham Rose,

Apologies. I tried to resist but in the end being prodded twice got to me. Sorry.

[Marmora Man]

I have been contacted by a Tony Coppock in response to my letter to Southwark Council regarding the traffic lights at junction of Forest Hill Road and Colyton Road. He informed me that:

a. No decision has yet been made

b. That the council has received views both for and against the plan to retain the traffic lights.

c. That the Chair of the Community Council will make the decision based upon views expressed by letter, at the forthcoming Community Council meeting and the results of a "consultation".

Tony Coppock was unable to tell me how the Chair will reach the decision, whether a majority vote at the CC would hold sway or whether the Council's own safety assessment would be paramount. Nor was he able to tell me where the 5th Oct CC meeting would be held, nor who the chair might be.

He did provide me the name and contact number of the chap "managing" the decision process. Philip Murphy - 020 7525 0814. I have called and left message asking for more details on process and the forthcoming CC meeting

[VikkiM]

Hi Marmora Man

I'm the Chair of the Nunhead and Peckham Rye Community Council and I can assure you that no decision has been made. The next meeting is at Rye Oak Primary school.

To date, the council officers have made a recommendation to all of the Community Council members (nine in total, not just me as) and together we need to agree whether we accept the recommendation or not.

I've been in touch with Philip Murphy and other officers to raise various queries I have with their recommendation. I'll also now see whether I can get hold of the for and against views that you mention have been received. Unlike James, I've only received a couple of emails about this to date. It may be that it's less of a concern for residents in the immediate vicinity (Peckham Rye ward) and more of concern for those further away as it's dispersing traffic on to other (East Dulwich ward) streets. This isn't something covered in detail in the report but it sounds like it should have been.

If there are further views out there I'm happy to hear them and to share them with the other community council members.

Cllr Victoria Mills

Labour Member for Peckham Rye Ward

T: 07535932318

E: [email protected]

www.peckhamryelabour.blogspot.com

www.twitter.com/victoria_mills

[Marmora Man]

VikkiM,

Thank you for the response.

Good to hear that no decision has yet been reached. I look forward to following the discussion that the meeting on 5th Oct.

As my EDF name suggests I live on Marmora Road - which has certainly become busier as a direct result of the installation of the lights - and I know that other roads, Therapia, Mundania, Scutari and Colyton Roads have all seen an increase in "rat run" traffic.

The other points I have made in my note earlier in this thread stand - altho' I acknowledge that the recent opening of the Harris Academy may warrant a re-siting of the pedestrian controlled light crossing closer to the school if / when the traffic lights I object to are removed.

[Vickster]

I have sent a letter along the lines of MM's (thanks for the template). VikkiM let me know if you would like me to send you a copy.

[skidmarks]

I think you?ll have a good chance of getting these signals out if anyone is brave enough that is at the council. One of my clients at Transport for London was telling me that as the Mayor has declared there will be no new traffic light installations in London (applies to the TLRN mainly) that there is a traffic light trading scheme at work now. It is already happening with bus shelters; bus shelters are disappearing from quiet locations and reappearing in other locations where they are needed more.

[whisteria]

Hi all,

My kids use the traffic lights to get to school. I would like them to stay. Homestall is busy during the school run and traffic lights mean the cars and buses have to stop. We are having real problems with traffic at the Harris Girls end of the park. Cars come around the corner very fast, parents u-turn on the junction, or on the bend and traffic often backs up. In my mind, if cars have to stop, then it's better for pedestrians. Oh and I agree, getting onto Forest Hill road was easier before traffic lights - in a car - but as a parent with kids who would like to walk to school on their own - my vote would be to keep the lights.

[TUFFIE]

In agreement with Whisteria, my family also cycle to school everyday and the area of road outside Harris Girls is a real mess at the moment. There is zebra crossing installed but unopen (barriers across the entrance) and a potentially disasterous combination of parents stopping on zig zag lines, u turning in the road and very fast traffic turning onto Homestall Road from Cheltenham Road. Fencing has been installed along the length of the area outside the school and in combination with the closed crossing its difficult and unsafe to gain entry to the park (the entrance also usually blocked up by a u turning driver). All this combined with dodging school girls its all a bit difficult!

The road has also become virtually single lane traffic due to double parking - not sure if this is all teachers/staff.

I know the stopping on zig zags has been a problem up at Goodrich School but I think has been mainly resolved by a letter to parents. Considering the Harris entrance is staffed every morning it would be useful if staff could wave parents on when attempting to pull in?

[Vickster]

I don't think there are any plans to remove the traffic lights and not replace them with anything. Prior to the lights bring installed there was a well used and functional zebra crossing in their place which enabled safe crossing of Forest Hill Road whilst not interfering with the flow of traffic. Plently of others school journeys involve zebra crossings rather than traffic lights and children and parents seem to be satisfied with this.

whisteria Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi all,

>

> My kids use the traffic lights to get to school. I

> would like them to stay. Homestall is busy during

> the school run and traffic lights mean the cars

> and buses have to stop. We are having real

> problems with traffic at the Harris Girls end of

> the park. Cars come around the corner very fast,

> parents u-turn on the junction, or on the bend and

> traffic often backs up. In my mind, if cars have

> to stop, then it's better for pedestrians. Oh and

> I agree, getting onto Forest Hill road was easier

> before traffic lights - in a car - but as a parent

> with kids who would like to walk to school on

> their own - my vote would be to keep the lights.

[johnie]

Hi all

I'd like to agree with whisteria. My kid cycles to school and the traffic lights make this much safer. There's also a lot of pedestrian traffic, often children, going to and from the park entrance, so to me it makes sense. I use the jucntion many times each week (I live on Scutari Road) by car, bike and foot. I vote to keep them.

Johnie

[Vickster]

I have just read with interest the thread that was started when the traffic light were installed (referred to above). It seems that the overwhelming majority of the people who contributed were against the installation of the lights. I wonder how many of them are aware of the possibility that they might stay?

Would it be bad form to resurrect the original thread and post a reference to this thread on it, as this would alert those who had originally ticked the box "send replies to this thread to me by e-mail". I realise this would mean there were two live threads on this issue, hence why I have asked. Presumably the original thread could then be locked though?

[Huguenot]

I love Tuffie's insinuation that the bad parking is down to staff, and that parents are driving irresponsibly because the staff aren't doing their job!

At some point grown adults have to take responsibility for their own actions,not blame teacher.

I also detect a thinly veiled ambition in this thread to ignore the many posters who want the traffic lights to stay. Lots of nimbyism on show here!

[Vickster]

Not really Huguenot, everyone has a right to make their views known to the council, for or against. I doubt the council will be ignoring those in favour of the lights remaining. Resurrecting thre old thread would equally alert those who were in favour of the lightd, so don't really see your point.

[Huguenot]

To resurrect a thread, you need merely post on it, and add a link to your thread here if you wish.

What you're proposing is to make it a sticky - which means elevating your own interests above every other thread on this forum - and then locking it - which means forcing people to take the route you want them to take.

I think that's a wee bit presumptive.

Incidentally, your headcount on the number of people complaining on the thread is an inappropriate way of judging the strength of your argument. In democratic debates you need to consider the silent majority, who are very happy with the status quo - so they don't need to comment.

It's the nature of bulletin boards that they attract complainers, if people are happy they just relax and put their feet up ;-)

[Vickster]

I think if you read my posts back more carefully, you will see that I was not proposing a sticky, as I agree that would be an inappropriate thing to do. The suggestion of locking the thread was to avoid having two threads running on the same issue. Please do not try to insinuate that my right to put my view on a proposed cause of action across is anything more sinster than that. I and others have come on here to give our views on an issue that affects our daily lives, whether we are for or against the lights. Yes, affecting our daily lives, not yours.

I will post a link to this thread on the original one, as you have suggested. This will then bring it to the attention of those that had a view on the issue back in 2007, both for and against, who may be unaware of the council's pending decision.

Also, I don't recall giving a headcount, so please don't put words into my mouth. I don't agree that a democratic process necessarily has a silent majority, particularly in this case where the proposal was to remove the lights, so the silent majority may well believe that is exactly what is going to happen. In any event, the council will make its decision based on a number of factors, but not by the results of a vote, so hardly a democratic process anyway.

[Edited to correct crap spelling]

[TJ]

To concur with Marmora Man, the planning authority must take into consideration that main roads must maintain traffic flow ata reasonable rate or very quickly people turn off into side roads to try to cut through. This is demonstrated by the sizeable rise in traffic cutting through the Wood Vale, Forest Hill, Lordship lane triangle during the recent street works, sewer collapse, water works etc etc. Lets by all means make sure pedestrians (including me) can access the park easily, but not at the constant detriment of the thousands of people travelling by public and private means up Forest Hill road.

Lets keep London moving, not bog it down due to well meaning but misguided political masturbation (a possible deliberate use of the word to irritate the politicos).

[Huguenot]

Vickster you crazy cat - this is a head count: "It seems that the overwhelming majority of the people who contributed were against the installation of the lights". There you go, you counted heads. QED.

As with most agitators, you create statements like that because you're trying to create a hypothetical mob that supports you. It's not based in reality, you're just mentally excluding dissenting views.

I appreciate that it affects your daily life, probably to the extent that you've lost a bit of perspective. That's what nimbyism is ;-)

Councils need to take into account a huge range of things TJ, and I have no doubt that traffic flow is one of them. There may be others, including pedestrians, who do not share your particular prioritisiation.

The question is whose priority is the most important one, and to what degree their opinion is honest (as opposed to prejudice).

Is it egocentric drivers, is it socially averse homeowners, is it old people trying to reach the shops, or families with small children, or schoolkids playing tag?

To what extent should we acccommodate drivers anyway? The freedom of the road is a fifties aspirational advertising concept that appeals to selfish people (see Tuffies comments on driving skills outside schools).

Traffic is bad because there's too many people with cars. There's 3 million cars in London, if ten of them go down your street because they're going somewhere else it's because there's 3 million cars in London, not because someone's out to get you.

Motorists are on the way out anyway, and not because the council are meanies. Why spend public cash on supporting them when in ten years time they won't be able to afford petrol because there isn't any?

TJ, you call it political masturbation, I call it vision, sociability and radiant commonsense. There are plenty of people who don't have any. If that's what you feel about their views, I'd say yours is widdling in the wind!

[Marmora Man]

Hugenot - you miss the main point. This is not about nimbyism but common sense. You are also arguing about the process of Vickster's campaign and not the substance.

Originally there were no traffic lights at this junction. There was an effective system of traffic islands and zebra crossings that seemed to suit everyone. The traffic islands and zebra crossings were removed and temporary (I stress temporary) lights were installed to facilitate the turning of large vehicles associated with the works on the Thames Water reservoir.

Now there is a possibility that these temporary lights will become permanent. Many object to this - and the additional rat run traffic is one part of the objection. This is not nimbyism - it is about practicality. Why not revert to the status quo ante - which was safe, effective and had no, reported, side effects. Some support their retention and have made their case too - but a casual reading of the associated threads would indicate that the ratio for removal to retention is about 5 : 1.

Some people are implying that removing a set of traffic lights must, inarguably, increase danger of traffic accidents - taking that argument to its extreme then every junction should have traffic lights.

The junction at Forest Hill Road / Colyton Road is not a major junction, cross traffic flow is not sufficient to justify traffic lights, the previous non traffic light system was safe and effective and allowed good traffic flow - lets get back to that is my argument. I intend to be at the meeting to make my point - no doubt others support their retention will be there too and we;ll see what the decision is. I hope logic and common sense will prevail over what I see as council bureaucracy and muddled thinking.

[Huguenot]

Okay, being a pisstaker, here's a letter worth sending:

ee text should others wish to use as a template.

Transport & Streets Department

Southwark Council


PO BOX 64529

London

SE1P 5LX

Traffic Lights ? Junction Forest Hill Road / Colyton Road

Dear Sir,

I understand that Southwark Council are considering whether to retain the traffic lights at the junction of Forest Hill Road and Colyton Junction. We recognise that Southwark Council indicated, when the lights were installed in September 2007, that this would be a temporary measure.

As I am sure the Council is aware there were many local motorists that objected to the initial installation of the traffic lights; however, we celebrate that there was a need to improve access and the environment for the entire local residential population rather than just high speed commuters and smug guys in gas guzzling SUVs.

To decide now to retain the lights seems the only reasonable approach. Apart from the wasteful logic of investing heavily to reverse a recent succesful project which worked to everyone's satisfaction, there are 5 following rebuttals to consider:

1. The personal experience on road use of local libertarians who despise any concept of social management is not only distorted by their overall politics, but motivated by the ridiculous conviction that if we let anyone do whatever they want whenever they want, the world would be a better place. This clearly doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a rich tory.

2. Difficulties with 'traffic flow' cannot be attributed to a single set of lights, but more to the fact that there are 3 million cars in London. The flow of buses such as the 363 and the 63 are much more negatively influenced by lazy people driving to the local shop to get a newspaper than they are by pedestrian facilities.

3. Perceptions of the numbers and speed of cars employing diversion tactics would be better identified by research rather than the off the cuff opinions of empty nester local people intent on maximising their own house value at the expense of people who want to safely cross the road.

4. I understand a recent ?safety assessment? has been carried out. This is a reflection of the desire of the council to serve the interests of the public, and whatever the context we welcome the findings. It is particularly satisfying that decisions at a council level are made on the basis of informed knowledge, rather than the gut feel of Nimbys.

5. We are particularly pleased that the council makes the decision based on the benefits to all, rather than being swayed by wierdy emotional concepts like 'going against the grain'. We pay the council to make informed decisions, not to pansy about at the beck and call of the current 'in thing'.

I recommend most strongly that these lights are retained.

Yours sincerely etc. etc.

... oh, and ;-)

[Huguenot]

Besides, Marmora Man, your 5:1 ratio is not only unsubstantiated but entirely useless as a reflection of local opinion.

The pedestrians wanting to cross the road safely are very likely to be local - perhaps 500 to 1,000 people in the directly affected area.

They're also likely to be OAPs, schoolchildren, busy families etc. They're disproportionately underrepresented on internet forum debates like this one.

The motorists wanting to use this stretch of road as a commuter high speed transit road are less likely to be locals, so they number the entire residential community of a large swathe of south London who really don't give a shite about local people. Perhaps 20,000+.

On this basis a 5:1 vote is a failure: it should be closer to 20:1 if it was to be representative.

Come on - all of you in favour of removing of the lights, how many of you live within half a mile of the location and have children under the age of thirteen or elderly relatives over the age of 65 that you care for?

I'm betting not very many at all.

It reminds me of the Parking Zone debate - where everyone who didn't want one on the grounds of bureaucarcy and limited parking spaces didn't actually live in the area that would be affected. In fact those in the CPZ area voted in a large majority to have one.

So really those who voted against it were actually voting to continue to rip off, oppress and make misery of the lives of local people.

Same thing here.

[Vickster]

Whilst I cannot be bothered to respond to the majority of your inane drivel from across the other side of the world, I would like to point out that I live within 200 metres of this junction, and have done for 6 years. I therefore have experience of the position both pre and post the lights so certainly have a valid opinion as to the effect they have had. Oh, and I have a child under 13 and one on the way. Your logic would dictate that I should therefore be in favour of retaining the lights, but for all the reasons set out by many above I think they should go.

Wanting to avoid the road outside my house (and others) being turned into a rat run has nothing to do with house prices (and that insinuation is quite frankly insulting), but the safety of residents on these minor roads where traffic speeds and volumes have been noticed to have increased since the installation of the lights (and yes many residents have asked the council for a safety review) on roads not designed to cope with it, unlike Forest Hill Road.

Not sure why you are turning this into your own personal crusade on behalf of those in favour of retaining the lights, but I am sure Vikki Mills and others would be more interested to hear the views of those for whom this actually matters, who I am sure can speak for themselves, despite the fact you seem to think them incapable of doing so. Young families under represented on this forum? Have you seem the Family Room?

Edited to say p.s. "It seems that the overwhelming majority of the people who contributed were against the installation of the lights".. Point being my statement was in repsect of people who contributed and was taken from the post of someone on the other thread who had totted them all up. They were the ones counting heads though....

[*Bob*]

Hugenot, our man in Singapore... Even my four year old can see how ridiculous the lights are - certainly on the crossings which are parallel with FHR.

The one (ones? I forget) that runs across FHR is only necessary because of the environment that putting all the crossings in has created: a disconcerting mixture of interminable waits and amber-gambling - for both motorists and pedestrians.

[Huguenot]

Oh gosh, being told I'm talking inane drivel by Vickster, oh the shame. ;-)

You'll notice that what drew my attention to this thread was the demand that other threads should be shut down and pinned to the 'top' of the page.

It's the forum equivalent of saying "me me look at me, my issue is the most important one and my opinion is the most important one, and noone else is allowed to say anything on other threads that I don't control".

You then fell into the trap of ignoring everyone else's point of view, claimed a mob support and generally became an overbearing self-righteous motorist.

Most of your arguments are opinions masquerading as facts, and your desire to ridicule the councils efforts to establish the strengths and weaknesses of the current solution is almost as impressive as sticking your fingers in your ears saying 'la la la not listening'.

In the face of exposure your bring up my residence in Singapore as if it means I'm not entitled to an opinion? That's not debate, just another example of smug bullying.

Come on Vickster, you only want your own way, and you're willing to ignore facts, ignore other people's views, tell porkies and bully people until you get it.

The best of British eh?

But mainly, I have a thing about self-righteous selfish motorists.